Its allegations and practices suggest disdain for American institutions, principles, best interests, and indeed for the American people.

February 21, 2018

Ready to fight back?

Sign up for Take Action Now and we’ll send you three meaningful actions every Tuesday.

Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue.

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

Support Progressive Journalism

The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.

Fight Back!

Sign up for Take Action Now and we’ll send you three meaningful actions you can take each week.

Travel With The Nation

Be the first to hear about Nation Travels destinations, and explore the world with kindred spirits.

Sign up for our Wine Club today.

Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?

Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian Studies and Politics at NYU and Princeton, and John Batchelor continue their (usually) weekly discussions of the new US-Russian Cold War. (Previous installments, now in their fourth year, are at TheNation.com.)

The nearly two-year-long series of allegations and investigations now known as “Russiagate” were instigated by top American political, media, and (probably) intelligence elites (mostly Democratic or pro-Democratic, but not only). What they have wrought suggests profoundly disturbing characteristics of people who play a very large role in governing this country. Cohen specifies six such barely concealed truths, which he and Batchelor then discuss.

1. Russiagate promoters evidently have little regard for the current or future institution of the American presidency. At the center of their many allegations is the claim that the current president, Donald Trump, achieved the office in 2016 because of a conspiracy (“collusion”) with the Kremlin; or as a result of some dark secret the Kremlin uses to control him; or due to “Russian interference” in the election; or to all three. Which means, they say outright or imply daily, that he is some kind of Kremlin agent or “puppet” and thus “treasonous.”

Such allegations are unprecedented in American history. They have already deformed Trump’s presidency, but no consideration is given to how they may affect the institution in the future. Unless actual proof is provided in the specific case of Trump—thus far, there is none—they are likely to leave a stain of suspicion (or similar allegations) on future presidents. If the Kremlin is believed to have made Trump president and corrupted him, even if this is not proven, why not future presidents as well?

That is, Russiagate zealots seek to delegitimize Trump’s presidency, but risk leaving a long-term cloud over the institution itself. And not only the presidency. They now clamor that the Kremlin is targeting the 2018 congressional elections, thereby projecting the same dark cloud over Congress, as some embittered losers are likely to blame Putin’s Kremlin.

2. These same Russiagate promoters clearly also have no regard for America’s national security. This is revealed in three ways:

§ By loudly and regularly proclaiming that Russia’s “meddling” in the 2016 US presidential election was “an attack on American democracy” and thus “an act of war,” comparable to Pearl Harbor and 9/11, as recently inventoried by Glenn Greenwald, they are literally practicing the dictionary meaning of “warmongering.” Can this mean anything less than that Washington must respond with “an act of war” against Russia? Tellingly, Russiagaters rarely if ever mention the potentially apocalyptic consequences of war between these two nuclear superpowers.

4

5

Current Issue

§ Still more, by their Russiagate accusations against Trump, whom they characterize as a “mentally unstable president,” they risk prodding or provoking the president to undertake just such a war against Russia in order to demonstrate that he is not the “Kremlin’s puppet.”

§ Meanwhile, by repeatedly stating they do not trust Trump to negotiate with Russian President Putin, Russiagate zealots severely limit his capacity, possessed by all American presidents since the onset of the atomic age, to resolve potential nuclear crises through diplomatic means rather than by military action, as President John F. Kennedy did in the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. (Imagine, Cohen adds, the outcome had Kennedy been so assailed by the allegations being leveled against Trump today.)

In short, as Cohen has argued previously, Russiagate and its elite adherents are now the number-one threat to American national security, not Russia itself.

§ Having found no factual evidence of such a plot, promoters of Russiagate have shifted their focus from the Kremlin’s alleged hacking of e-mails at the Democratic National Committee to Russia’s social-media “attack on our democracy.” In so doing, they reveal something bordering on contempt for American voters, for the American people.

§ A foundational principle of theories of democratic representative government is that voters make rational and legitimate decisions. But Russiagate advocates strongly imply—even state outright—that American voters are easily duped by “Russian disinformation,” zombie-like awaiting a signal as how to act and vote. The allegation is reminiscent of, for people old enough to remember, the classic Cold War film “Invasion of the Body Snatchers.” But, Cohen proposes, let the following representatives of America’s elite media speak for themselves:

§ According to Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker, Russia social-media intrusions “manipulated American thought.… The minds of social media users are likely becoming more, not less, malleable.” And this, she goes on, is especially true of “older, nonwhite, less-educated people.” New York Times columnist Charles Blow adds that this was true of “black folks.” Times reporter Scott Shane is entirely straightforward, writing about “Americans duped by the Russian trolls.” And Evan Osnos of The New Yorkerspells it out without nuance: “At the heart of the Russian fraud is an essential, embarrassing insight into American life: large numbers of Americans are ill-equipped to assess the credibility of the things they read.”

§ Cohen emphasizes (though this is hardly necessary) that these are lead writers for some of America’s most elite publications. He adds, their apparent contempt for “ordinary” Americans is not unlike a centuries-old trait of the Russian intelligentsia, which held the Russian narod (people) in similar contempt, while maintaining that it therefore must lead them, and not always in democratic ways.

4. Russiagate was initiated by political actors, but the elite establishment media gave it traction, inflated it, and promoted it to what it is today. These most “respectable” media include The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New York Review of Books, The New Yorker, and, of course, CNN and MSNBC, among others. These media outlets constantly proclaim themselves to be factual, unbiased, balanced, and thus another essential component of American democracy—a “fourth branch of government.”

§ But that has been far from the case in their reporting and commentary on Russiagate. Their combined loathing for Trump and “Putin’s Russia” has produced one of the worst episodes of media malpractice in the history of American journalism. This requires a special detailed study, though no media critics or journalism schools seem interested. But a somewhat close reader of these mainstream newspapers, and television “news” viewer, will note their selective, disproportionate coverage of some stories to the exclusion of others; the prejudicial language and prosecutorial slant often employed; the systematic violation of journalistic due process and presumption of innocence; the equal exclusion of contrary “sources” and “expert” opinions in their pages and on their televised panels; and other disregard for long-established journalistic standards.

§ Nor are these elite media outlets above slurring the reputations of people who dissent from their prosecutorial coverage of Russiagate. Very recently, for example, The New York Times traduced a Facebook vice president whose own study suggested that “that swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal” of Russian use of Facebook. Even more revealing, a brand name of the liberal-progressive MSNBC, John Heilemann, suggested on air, referring to Congressman Devin Nunes, “that we actually have a Russian agent running the House Intel Committee on the Republican side.” The Democratic senator being interviewed, Chris Murphy, was less than categorical in brushing aside the “question.”

§ And not to be overlooked, these mainstream media have done little if anything to protest the creeping Big Brother censorship programs now being assiduously promoted by government and private institutions in order to ferret out and ban “Russian disinformation,” something of which any American dissenter from the orthodox Russiagate narrative might be “guilty” entirely on his or her own. Indeed, leading media have abetted and legitimized these undemocratic undertakings by citing them as legitimate sources.

§ Cohen leaves to others to decide what the Russiagate role of establishment media reveals about the elites who run them.

5. Briefly regarding the obvious role being played by the Democratic Party, or at least by its leading members, in Russiagate, whatever the serious commissions and omissions of the Republican Party may be: In a word, as it looks ahead to congressional elections in 2018, this essential component of the American (perhaps lamentably) two-party democratic system is now less a vehicle of positive domestic and foreign-policy alternatives than a party promoting conspiracy theories, Cold War, and neo-McCarthyism. (According to conversations with a number of local candidates, these electoral approaches are less their initiatives than cues, or directives, coming from high party levels—that is, from the Democratic elite.) And this leaves aside the Russiagate social-media narrative that blames the Kremlin for “divisions” in America that have pitted American citizens, and Democrats and Republicans, against each other for decades, often in “exacerbated” ways, not merely since 2016.

6. Finally, but no less revealing, American elites have long professed to be people of civic courage and honor. But Russiagate has produced very few “profiles in courage”—people who use their privileged positions of political or media influence to protest the abuses itemized above. Hence another revelation, if it is really that: America’s elites are composed overwhelmingly not of “rugged individualists” but of conformists—whether that is due to ambition, fear, or ignorance hardly matters.

Stephen F. CohenStephen F. Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University and a contributing editor of The Nation.

You speak of contempt of ordinary Americans intelligence by the "elite media" and the Democratic party without any substantive factual information to prove of your assertion that there is not a Russian threat.
What about the about Russian troll farms seems exaggerated to you? You never say.
Put in the larger context of Mueller investigations indictments of Gates, Flynn and Manifort. Pappadopoulos, , Van der Zwaann, all with Russian connections your article is absurd on its face.
You are afraid that a decade's long hostility with Russia (our enemy) will result in war? And you call this news?
Who is your daddy?
Your Russiagate conspiracy theory is enough to embarrass a birther. Mary Z is right you need to learn how to communicate and make and argument.

(5)(27)

Mary M Zhusays:

February 24, 2018 at 10:38 am

No matter how complex the subject, a writer needs to communicate clearly. This was not the case here.

The writer assumes we know what Russiagate is. I might have guessed it is the tangled web of Russia/Trump/our elections. After trying several times to understand this piece, I know less than when I began.

And then there's the conspiracy angle, vaguely conjured up, maybe tongue in cheek. How tiresome.

Who has time for this kind of writing?

(8)(32)

Walter Pewensays:

February 24, 2018 at 7:44 pm

Those who have done sufficient reading on the topic beforehand.

(22)(3)

Jeffrey Harrisonsays:

February 22, 2018 at 11:15 am

Reading Mr. Cohen is like a refreshing drought of cold water on a hot day. The reality is that the US is shooting itself in the foot with the switch set on automatic. On the one hand we have the likes of McFaul claiming with a straight face that, in essence, if the US does it, it's OK because we're the good guys. That might play in Peoria but the rest of the world understands that everybody has to play by the same set of rules. And the rest of the world is becoming increasingly important. On the other hand, you have Nikki Haley referring, in the UN, to the Kim regime, the Assad regime, and the Putin regime. The Russian representative had to point out to her that the Russian government is democratically elected and so was, weather she liked it or not, the Syrian government. The blatant effort to delegitimize any government that doesn't do as we tell them isn't going to be lost on the rest of the world, either. I would say that we should stop sticking our nose in everybody else's business but, after all, that's just what we do and so far nobody's been able to stop us.

(52)(5)

Walter Pewensays:

February 23, 2018 at 9:46 am

Just as an aside, having Nikki Haley, whose training is as an accountant, elevated to the post at the UN says a lot about how fast we are going downhill.

(34)(2)

Jeffrey Harrisonsays:

February 24, 2018 at 11:55 am

Agreed. Especially considering that whatever Nikki Haley may or may not be, a diplomat she is not. But neither was Samantha Powers.

(23)(0)

Walter Pewensays:

February 22, 2018 at 10:15 am

As a layman citizen, I will for a lifetime be stark in my emotion over the United States continuing, forever almost fetishism, if you will the "Russian Question." One side of my family fled the Bolshevik Revolution, and I was told not to say too much about even "being Russian."
So to close out the first act of the "first Cold War" via Reagan (hilarious) and then it was "all supposed to stop.
Now it's looping through to the sequel, Cold War II. We really need to keep selling tickets for this picture and keep people interested. I am way too tired.
All one has to do is a minimum of reading on what Russia really is to see how much energy will continue to be thrown away because we have become a nation full of marketing idiots. Starting with Trump. Marketing as field is kind of destroying us, not them.

(27)(1)

Victor Sciamarellisays:

February 22, 2018 at 10:03 am

It is always a great pleasure to listen to the conversation between Stephen Cohen and John Batchelor. A few notes are in order on war with Russia and Russiagate.
Bismarck once declared, “Russia is never as strong or as weak as it appears.” Nonetheless, American foreign policy planners want to represent Russia as either so strong it is about to roll over the world or so weak we can expand NATO to its border, orchestrate a coup in Ukraine, and pursue a neoliberal agenda without consequences. They wittingly or unwittingly increase the chances of a real war with Russia.
Russiagate is an evolving strategy which, in the end, the real victims will be progressive politicians and media.
The Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, who is Mueller’s boss and who must sign off on any Mueller indictment of Trump, re the recent indictment of 13 Russian trolls said, “…nor is there any allegation that the scheme affected the outcome of the election.”
Yet, on 2/16/2018, MSNBC’s Ari Melber tweeted, “Bernie Sanders’ response to Mueller indictment does not address that this Russian operation tried to help his campaign… Just as I reported re Trump, that is a remarkable omission.”
He later tweeted, “Russian election interference started early in 2016, supporting Trump and Bernie Sanders a day after the New Hampshire primary.”
Max Blumenthal responded that this was “ a cynical psy-op aimed by the party establishment at dismantling the Sanders’ movement.”
Joy Reid tweeted on 2/17/2018, “Hillary Clinton could have won if Jill Stein was not being pushed by Russia.”
Jill Stein was brought before the Senate Intelligence Committee because she was, falsely, accused in the now discredited Dossier, of being paid by Russia to attend a RT event in Moscow.
Russiagate extends to UK Labor Party leader Jeremy Corbyn when on 2/18/2018 The Telegraph reported that, “The Czechoslovak secret agent [Jan Sarkocy] who met Jeremy Corbyn during the Eighties claimed last night that the Labour leader knew he was a spy and said [Corbyn] had supplied information to the Communist regime.” “Jan Sarkocy on Friday dismissed the suggestion that [Corbyn] believed he was simply a diplomat.” “Everybody knew that ‘diplomat’ was just a cover for spy,” he said. “Mr Corbyn has denied being an agent or informer,…”
In a recent interview on The Real News Blumenthal said, “Everyone on the left has to be extremely aware of what's happening here and they need to mount a united front against Russiagate because, as I said at the beginning, just as in the old Cold War, a new Cold War will embolden the most militaristic actors in our society and marginalize everyone on the left by design.”
The likelihood of proof that Trump colluded or cooperated with Russia is doubtful. Thus, we should be aware, that the pursuit of the Russian narrative above all else, will in the end, be the downfall of the left and pave the way for establishment candidates in 2018 and 2020 and beyond.
Moreover, Cohen’s remarks on press reports of voters being duped, is a step towards controlling the growth of the internet left media — and like the Patriot Act, in the name of protecting Americans.
Lastly, where is Hillary Clinton and why isn’t she out front answering tough questions about what went on inside the DNC? Was the Trump-Russia connection manufactured as a campaign strategy? And should we risk war to protect Clinton and Obama’s legacy?

(42)(3)

Jack Thompsonsays:

February 21, 2018 at 9:11 pm

Here's the interesting thing about all those democrats controlling "Russiagate." Republicans control both houses of congress, chairmanships of all committees. AG Sessions, a Republican, recused himself from any investigation into Russian meddling for having failed to disclose his meetings with Russians. . Assistant AG Rosenstein, a Republican, appointed Robert Mueller, a Republican, as special counsel to investigate Russian interference with the 2016 election. Mueller, a Republican, was highly praised by Republicans at the time of his appointment. So I guess Mr. Cohen is right on at least one point - "Russiagate was initiated by political actors."

(16)(12)

Philip Gerardsays:

February 21, 2018 at 6:26 pm

What is of particular concern about this rush to pin the Democrat's loss in 2016 on the Russians is that the next step will be to paint those trying to reform the party as being in some way or another as being Russian enablers.

(47)(4)

Ruthmarie Hickssays:

February 24, 2018 at 11:34 pm

We passed "Go" on that one a long way back. Those trying to reform the party (like myself) are derided as Bernie Bros, Russian enablers, people who were "suckered" by Russian trolls, people who childishly INSISTED on the "perfection" before we would give our seal of approval for Shillary.

The attempt to discredit any attempt a reforming a a corrupt and tired political party is being fought tooth and nail by the elites. Expect them to use every weapon at their disposal and you won't be surprised.

(19)(0)

Walter Pewensays:

February 26, 2018 at 9:51 am

It's just quite disturbing to a lot of us. All your points on derisive terms are correct. It's really as sinister as how the GOP really got that kind of thing going about all of us via messengers like Lee Atwater, etc. The "L" word , on and on. For the Republicans, who were saying anything to keep hold of the reins. Now "our own" are doing to us--think twice people who do it, you will live to regret it.